Maybe, for some projects, instead of generating code with it, it would be useful to generate a plan and the loop(tests/formal verification),because those take much less tokens than a full project, and than use the loop using the older models ?
Has anyone experimented with Batch Processing? According to <a href="https://claude.com/pricing#api" rel="nofollow">https://claude.com/pricing#api</a> using Batch processing cuts the price 50%. So I wonder if any of the harnesses like OpenCode/Pi or similar could be made to use that for planning or similar.
Yes, I've been using Opus to write a plan and fanout sonnet subagents to implement it. Cheaper and faster
This is the goal behind Devin Fusion, pretty good results so far I think.<p><a href="https://cognition.com/blog/devin-fusion" rel="nofollow">https://cognition.com/blog/devin-fusion</a>
I think that's the idea, I saw some outrage on reddit about Fable using Opus to do code writing, another comment said exactly my reaction, why do you want to pay double for tool calling when Opus is just fine for the task?
Isn't that the kind thing its best at as well? Art least comparatively with other models. The more agentic stuff. Planning, tool orchestration, etc.
But wouldn't that still result in higher token usage to scan the code base and figure out the changes and generate the plan? In my experience sometimes Opus launchs a Haiku sub-agent to explore the code base, but it's not gaurenteed.
this is the idea of opusplan
<a href="https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#opusplan-model-setting" rel="nofollow">https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#opusplan-model-...</a>
Article has a section about context window size settings<p>I love not getting compacted so often, but 1M context is trash right now, the degradation in speed and quality is too great above ~600k context<p>Not different than what everyone knows, but the 1M context is masqueraded as an innovation the same way 64k context used to be to 8k context
Yes, I do this all the time in Cline. It supports automatic model change when switching from Plan mode to Act (implementation) mode. Opus for planning and Sonnet for implementation. It works great.
I'll be using it tonight but grudgingly so. Grudgingly because after July 7th, I'm not going to all of a sudden, start paying API prices (and maybe that's the problem) when I'm used to a subscription that gives me multiples in comparative value. Perhaps this is the fabled "token economics will come for everyone this year" that I've been reading about? In any case, I'll use the hell out of it to extract as much as I can, then back to the trusted partners Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 (for however long they remain available).
I was wrong, I thought they would only go for B2B already. But instead they will remove it from the subscription and price it at 50$/mtok. Compared to GLM-5.2 for 4.40$ that's quite a gap
Related ongoing thread:<p><i>Claude Fable 5 Promotional Access</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48751978">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48751978</a> - July 2026 (63 comments)<p>Recent and related:<p><i>Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48740771">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48740771</a> - June 2026 (625 comments)
The loss of trust in using US based model's is unlikely to come back though.<p>Anthropic with it's hyped doomsday messaging, and the administration falling for it (at best), has eroded a lot of trust and has triggered an arms race of sorts.
If you've built a product based on AI, then diversify or make an abstraction layer so your product is model agnostic and you can plug and play any model. If you're an end user like a software engineer, just use another model or like Gemini or ChatGPT. That is more productive than complaining about a trust which wasn't there in the first place to begin with.<p>Anthropic provides a service and they can stop offering it regardless of export ban or not, same goes for any other AI company in any country. If you really wants a trusted LLM, then run your own open weight model.
Here's to OpenAI and a chinese firms bringing some much needed competition.
OTOH: “our product is so good it was banned for being too good” is the best advertising possible. OpenAI would kill to get that.<p>I’m not falling over myself to test out Sonnet 5, but I am very interested in Fable.
On the other side. What would happen if Anthropic did not communicate like they did and Fable was used to hack Pentagon? Dario would swing from a tree.
I am only a casual Clause (Pro) user and I am confused by the messaging, maybe I'm missing something obvious.<p>> Until July 7, you can use up to 50% of your plan's weekly usage limit on Fable 5.<p>Does this mean that being able to use Fable on my subscription is a time-limited promotion? I have a subscription, why can't I just... use the model? Is it the case that going forward a subscription will only give you access to older models and newer ones will require additional payment?
Yes:<p><i>> After July 7, 2026, Claude Fable 5 is no longer included in your plan’s weekly usage limits. You can keep using Claude Fable 5 through usage credits, which let you pay for usage beyond what your plan includes. Learn more about using usage credits.</i><p>I'm not sure what this means in the long run. Either Fable 5 might become part of the subscription again once stronger models become available or Anthropic's compute capacity increases, or this is the start of the subscription being phased out. It doesn't really make sense to pay for a subscription that's stuck on Opus 4.8 when other providers are continually pushing out better models.
If it's the end of the subsidized subscriptions, that's going to cause problems for a lot of not so heavily capitalized companies that want to make use of frontier AI models.<p>It also would mean I stop being an Anthropic customer outside of whatever my employer is willing to pay. I prefer it for now to GPT/Codex but if GPT5.6 is as good as or close to Fable, and its included in the subscription, I'll switch the moment its available.
There will be an Opus 5 though.
If Opus 5 is capable enough, it will have the same guardrails with blocks/downgrades as Fable.<p>So now we are supposed to cheer for Opus 5 to be just a mild improvement at best?
That's fair.
If Fable becomes "API priced", I'm going to switch from Claude Code to some other harness.<p>My loop will switch from "100% Anthropic subscription" to "10% occasional Anthropic API credits + 90% Chinese models".<p>This is the moment American models sink or swim. If they switch to API pricing, I'm adding Chinese models into the mix.
That didn't take long...<p><pre><code> Dynamic workflow "Multi-lens review of docs/membership-and-friends-model.md with adversarial verification" completed · 25m 59s
You've reached your Fable 5 limit
You've used your included Fable 5 usage for this week. Continuing on Fable 5 uses usage credits</code></pre>
Managed to hit 100% of my 5 hour limit and 19% of my weekly Fable limit in 12 minutes. I have a Max 5x subscription.<p>Can't wait to try out GPT 5.6 at some point when it comes available.
Wow, practically totally useless.
During the initial release, they indicated you'd be able to use Fable 5 as part of your subscription for a limited period of time, and then it would require usage credits. They also did say at that time that they hoped to make it a part of the subscription plans again at some point after that.<p>For this return, they've extended the usage period to July 7, but limited you to 50% of your usage quota, and have not restated the desire to make it permanently part of the subscription plans at some point.<p>I still have hope, but it's not moving in the right direction to be sure.
Personal prediction: I do think the market will essentially force their hand to include it in subscriptions before too long. OpenAI, local models, Chinese models will continue to improve.<p>But, there are also harsh realities of compute volume and cost to run all of these will be fighting against.<p>What I do expect is a multi-tiered rollout of future models. You want the latest SOTA release? Usage credits.<p>Subscription plans will end up getting models on a lagging interval of a few months.
> After July 7, 2026, Claude Fable 5 is no longer included in your plan’s weekly usage limits. You can keep using Claude Fable 5 through usage credits, which let you pay for usage beyond what your plan includes.<p>They stated the desire <i>not</i> to bring it to the subscription.
No you will still get access to newer models on the subscription. You should have access to Sonnet 5, which is new. It's just Mythos class models that are API only.<p>For now... You never know with these companies.
Fable is more expensive to run, and they haven't figured out the GTM strategy just yet. I imagine they'll see how much people actually use to see if it's still worth subsidizing on the Max/Pro plans, or if they make an extra tier above.
> Until July 7, you can use up to 50% of your plan's weekly usage limit on Fable 5. If you hit your limit, you can continue on Fable 5 with usage credits. Fable 5 draws down usage faster than Opus 4.8.<p>This is what I see in my Claude Code terminal. I don't feel like that 50% rule was there before?
I really hope they reconsider adding Fable access back to the subscription plans, at least the 20x plan. I know it was the original intention when the 14 day (I think) time frame was originally announced, and they were working to keep it on subscription plans. But no word if thats even a thing anymore?
The market will force them to bring it back. They're probably capacity constrained right now, or need to figure out whether they need another pricing tier for it to "fit in a subscription". What they <i>don't</i> want is for someone to code for 4 days of the week and cap out every week.
Only for the next week.<p>> Fable 5 will be included for up to 50% of weekly usage limits through July 7, after which it will be available via usage credits.
Right, but originally they announced a period of time it was included in plans, and then they were "working hard" to extend the period and eventually make it a permanent fixture of the plans.
I'd imagine they want to do price segmentation. Sell the best model for $50k a year to corporations willing to pay full price, keep the rest of us on a lower tier. Gotta pay for that infra somehow.
I just don't really understand the entire strategy behind this. Or their horrible, horrible communication.<p>Because right now it's as if Fable/Mythos 5 is "the end of the line". It's as if this is the best their models are ever going to be. So what the hell are we going to get next? All of their models will forever inch closer to Fable, but never reach it? That doesn't make any sense.<p>It all seems so dramatic. Instead of just saying honestly "Look, this model is a beast to run, but we're striving to reach the same quality in a cheaper model down the line" all we get is "Oh my god, it's so big and scary, and it costs so much to run, woe is me!"
I'd imagine that depends on how it winds up being used.
It won't even review a cyber security blog post I wrote. Absolutely worthless and pitiful guardrails.
I'm having it review a project Opus 4.8 created. No security review, just "look for general issues, performance problems, missing features, etc." It spawned about twenty background tasks. It's still going, but so far, one has completed, and four have failed with guardrail messages. Nothing special, just stuff like reviewing the API:<p><i>Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message (<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup</a>). They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Claude Code can't respond to this request with Fable 5.</i><p><i>Try rephrasing the request in a new session or change your model.</i><p>This is incredibly stupid, particularly because I didn't write the request in the first place. Fable wrote it when it spawned the background task. How am I supposed to rephrase it?<p>Fable probably told itself to do a security review, and then failed itself for trying to do a security review, and now it's telling me not to tell it to do a security review.
yeah I'm also getting this for standard dev work, anything with kubernetes etc<p>completely nerfs the model because you can't let it do stuff over a few hours unattended because 90% it's going to switch to opus in first 10 minutes anyway<p>so seems best thing now is to have it write plans and then default to using opus for work anyway?
It's honestly kinda interesting. Now we're at a point where SOTA model companies aren't the ones who release the best tech, but who release the best and actually usable tech.<p>A worse product could win right now if it simply does as its asked.
Blame Amazon and the White House
> <i>Fable wrote it when it spawned the background task. How am I supposed to rephrase it?</i><p>Can the harness to auto-rephrase? I imagine, doing so will burn through tokens though.
> I imagine, doing so will burn through tokens though.<p>What a surprisingly beneficial consequence for Anthropic.
Maybe set up Codex to rephrase stuff and remote control the Claude Code terminal?
Cybersecurity? It won't even help me work on my speech synthesizer[0]!<p>I guess? If you squint? DSP code could look a little like AI training code? ... Er. No. Not really I'm pretty lost on this one.<p>The task was literally just to compare against the "make a beautiful voice" plan, see what we've implemented, see what's left to do, and to make recommendations for low-hanging fruit, anything we've done wrong so far? (aaaaand ... downgrade. At least it wasn't silent.<p>[0]: <a href="https://github.com/ctoth/qlatt" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ctoth/qlatt</a>
That's why we made OpenPatcher which uses open source models to give you consistent review of code to fix them: <a href="https://x.com/ryaneshea/status/2072332311971197077" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/ryaneshea/status/2072332311971197077</a>
Not exactly. Every time I ask something using Fable, it switches to Opus. The subjects (and I tried many) seem to be irrelevant.<p>Basically, I can't use Fable.
Check your CLAUDE.md, etc. for any of the banned topics or anything adjacent. Also check your recent Git commit history, if you're running the agent in a repository, as well. The classifier trips on anything anywhere in context, so those could be sources of rejections.
I have to admit that when it was blocked, I canceled my max plan and asked for a refund. It felt like someone took away my previous toy. So I'm happy it's back again; I upgraded to max again. Coding aside, but Claude Design is phenomenal - for both new designs and redesigning existing UIs. So my customers will face a new wave of refreshed screens all over the place in coming days ;)
Yep claude design is nice. You can also do it from CLI or your own lovable clone. I made a fork from claudable <a href="https://github.com/holoduke/Claudable" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/holoduke/Claudable</a>
What I find stong with Fable is that it can pixel perfect copy existing sites or designs. And it can do complete conversions from plain html to nuxt, angular or react apps.
> So my customers will face a new wave of refreshed screens all over the place in coming days<p>How do you determine the changes to make?<p>Do you A/B test?<p>How do you measure success?<p>What is your product?<p>How many customers do you have?
My product is AuditBadger.com - it's an AI-assisted compliance management platform (ISO27001 & SOC2) that guides you through the whole process (with everything a small business might want from such software). Having a few dozen customers allows me to still care about them personally and do onboarding for each and every one of them. During those onboardings, catch-ups, or weekly calls, I see where they struggle. This is how I determine what to work on next. There's no clear measurement of success beyond user satisfaction, though they every now and then praise me a little for UI/UX improvements.
With Claude Design, I've got my design system set up (also by Claude scanning the repo); I upload a screenshot of the area I'm not happy with, prompt with some additional remarks, and after a couple of iterations, I get a proposal, which is always better than what I come up with in the first place.
> When Claude Fable 5 declines a request, the Messages API returns stop_reason: "refusal" as a successful HTTP 200 response, not an error<p>This is <i>precisely</i> what comes to mind when I think “successful”.
A missed opportunity to use the HTTP 451 status code.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451</a>
Is refusal something that can happen mid-stream, after status and headers have been received? I haven't looked at the API
Not super impressed, but I doubt my requests are getting routed to Opus -- it just doesn't seem to be as good at mathematics as it is at code (I found this to be the case last time it was released as well).
I keep getting this error mid agent loop: "Error: claude-fable-5 is temporarily unavailable"<p>Planning went well, started working on the code, reading the code - all went fine<p>But when it started writing the code or executing the bash, sarted tetting lots of these errors
Coding is solved once again!
Their post detailing the timeline and their actions since reinforce my belief that Anthropic is among the <i>most</i> trustworthy AI companies.<p><a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/redeploying-fable-5" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/news/redeploying-fable-5</a>
It's time for gpt 5.6 to come out too now.
I cancelled Claude. The harness is kinda broken, GPT 5.5 is good, and GLM 5.2/Deepseek is good too (with pi, especially). Just not worth the trouble. And I'm not going to pay two subscriptions.
I believe they will keep fable available, but either reduce the usage to 25% or even 10% otherwise I don't think they would have put that much effort into flushing out a system like that.
Happy to see that Fable is back, was sad to see it go after getting to use it for only 1.5 days before. Add on top sonnet 5 availability and coding is looking fine again.
> There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5[1m]). It may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to pick a different model.
I'm not getting the Opus 4.8 switch for coding, supposedly given how fast I reached the usage limit, which is kind of nice.
I applaud the engineers that work at Anthropic, who have created both amazing products and uniquely intelligent models -- but I really shake my head at some of their business decisions and public comms which have done a lot to damage their trustworthiness in the business and developer community.<p>In just the past month: they decided to silently downgrade (instead of simply refusing) responses related to machine learning and other 'competitive' topics [1]. Then, they were caught fingerprinting certain request environments in a hidden way [2]. And now, once Fable is re-released after much frustration among its customers, they are providing it for a shorter period than promised (mostly over a major holiday period), with more stringent safety classifiers and a 50% haircut to usage limits.<p>It's hard to not view the organization as bizarrely adversarial to its customers. I was incredibly supportive of Anthropic during the supply chain debacle, as I viewed it as the capricious actions of a corrupt admin. But now I am wondering if it was just a response to the ineptness of their business leaders.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48467896">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48467896</a>
[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734373">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734373</a>
I'm with you there. The way they treat their customers is high-handed and disdainful.<p>I'm gradually moving to GLM 5.2 on Opencode. It's the barest fraction of the price, and it's surprisingly capable. I notice very little difference vs. Opus 4.8.
This is exceedingly easy to explain: demand is way too high, and the pro/max plans are loss leaders. I've paid a total of $20 and in 10 days, my cost, according to Claude code's cost tracker is like $400, which actually doesn't include all the use I've done.<p>Which is to say, if I continue my current usage over the month, I'll be getting $1000 of Claude for $20. It's difficult to be mad at someone selling me a $20 for two quarters, even if they're putting a bunch of restrictions on how and when I can do that.
> It's hard to not view the organization as bizarrely adversarial to its customers. I was incredibly supportive of Anthropic during the supply chain debacle, as I viewed it as the capricious actions of a corrupt admin. But now I am wondering if it was just a response to the ineptness of their business leaders.<p>From the start Anthropic have been hostile to its own customers, and also trained on pirated books and had to settle north of $1.5B avoiding a $100B+ worth of damages if found liable.<p>Then they attempted and are still pursing against powerful open weight models by asking governments for regulatory changes that effectively ban the release of them - because it undermines their own moat (lol) and business model.<p>Now not only they were caught silently fingerprinting their customers requests, they are now placing ID verification for using their own powerful models, which could apply to everyone else for using powerful LLMs.<p>There just is no point in defending this company at all. Anthropic are NOT your friends.
This is getting served with a certificate Firefox says was created by an unknown issuer. It's possible I'm getting hit by a corporate middle-box, but then I'd expect to get this on every single host name.
What’s the fable of this story?
By the gods! The next 20 minutes will be the most consequential of my life ...
Did they remove that policy that forces retention of data for fable, even if you use it on AWS or elsewhere
For how long?
Definitely NOT a marketing ploy.
Here we go!<p>Might need a few more Claude subscriptions.
Now the Chinese models can start the distilling process again so I can get a better small parameter local model.
Anthropics marketing dept were a tad overzealous with how they positioned this model, now it's biting them back.<p>If this was just another model without the hype doom marketing, I don't think we'd be where we are.
> After July 7, 2026, Claude Fable 5 is no longer included in your plan’s weekly usage limits. You can keep using Claude Fable 5 through usage credits, which let you pay for usage beyond what your plan includes.<p>This is the real story.
Was confused, thinking I somehow missed the release of the game Fable 4, only to be disappointed when I saw this is about Claude LLM crap.
Peter Molyneux continues to re-invent himself. His newest "god game" claims to have the ability to code any game you like, on demand. Just as you'd expect from an omnipotent deity!
It's kind of like that time "crypto" changed it's meaning to cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
If the future of SOTA is handicaped models, then what's the point?<p>Writing code is already okay for current open models like GLM, QWEN.<p>I only need SOTA models for slop reviews, clean-ups and helping me with things I am not good at.<p>I have been extremelly happy with the results of cheaper models recently.<p>Composer 2.5 is a beast, fast and cheap. The upcoming Grok will probably be even better, since cursor helped trainning it.<p>Anthropic will lose market share quickly if they can't do better than this fable shit show...
[dead]
[flagged]
They also announced a promotional offer in here: [0]<p>> For a limited time, you can use our newest model—Claude Fable 5—at no extra cost as part of your subscription plan.<p>> During the promotional period, you can use up to 50% of your weekly subscription limits on Claude Fable 5 at no extra cost.<p>So it lasts for a week until July 7, 2026 at 11:59:59 PM PT. Then they will pull the plug on that.<p>So it sounds like a great time to roll the dice, pull that lever, spin that roulette wheel and spend as many tokens as possible, at no extra cost at the Anthropic casino's latest upgraded slot machine called Fable 5.<p>Available to gamblers while capacity and availability lasts. Most importantly have fun and don't blow up your budget.<p>[0] <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable-5-promotional-access" rel="nofollow">https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15424964-claude-fable...</a>